Conservative Radio Host Kenny Suitter Arrested for Filming Again, This Time on the MetroLink

When Suitter decides not to produce an ID card, officers follow through on their warning and handcuff him for trespassing.

Suitter posted his cell-phone video on YouTube the next day, and after just four days, it has already been seen more than 10,000, not counting the 41,000 views on the video-sharing site LiveLeak.com.

"I would never have published the footage if it hadn't been for the controversy surrounding it," Suitter says. "Nothing ever would have been done with that footage."

This isn't Suitter's first on-air confrontation with the law. He was arrested for trespassing at the St. Charles County Republican caucus in 2012 when he wouldn't stop filming despite a caucus ban on recording. Brent Stafford of O'Fallon was also detained and posted the two videos leading up to arrest:

Suitter even published a video tutorial called "How to handle police interrogations," outlining three steps to avoid "potential trouble": film the officer, have someone film you while you film the officer and respond to all inquiries with "I don't answer questions."

We Recommend

Don't be put off because this guy is a "conservative" (I've never heard of him) anything. I'm an unabashed liberal, and this is ridiculous. Who cares if he basically knew an issue would be made of it. That's not the point. Doesn't take a genius to see the slippery slope argument stemming from this. Guy was doing nothing dangerous or morally wrong.

I'm implying that we should not jump to conclusions based on heavily edited footage from the guy throwing around the accusations. For all we know, he was juggling babies on camera before the security guard came up to him. He clearly wanted to start shit to show his ass and he did. He was rude, which helped to tailspin the situation further. I'd like to know the whole story.

I love that each of us is armed with video cameras. The guy is right to assert his rights,.... he can use his camera...and should...anytime he wants to. Unless it is a threat to national security, or, he is targeting one person that complains about it, he should be allowed. I smell a policy that is going to need a great big review in the very near future. Cops are also going to have to be more clear on these issues. I don't pay cops to enforce MetroLink's in house policies. The cops were fine when they arrived and just asked him to leave....the got a little hot when the guy kept filming. Cops hate cameras. When he asked for their names and badge numbers....THEN...there was a problem. THEN...all of a sudden...he was gonna get arrested for trespassing. I bet this will be on Donnybrook on Sunday....I can't wait to hear their arguments on the subject.

Saw that! Ken great job as you just illustrated what I have been screaming about for over a year. It's a crime now to video police and others anytime, anywhere, and they throw the book at you if you do it. Plus, you are now on their hit list to terrorize in the future. I did it once and they were going to arrest me for felony obstruction of justice. Good luck fighting the huge corruption that is government and law enforcement my old friend from the Sauget/Brooklyn Ballet! Be well.

How can they even determine whether or not this is "commercial use?" He's not using a professional quality camera, but a consumer camera, he has no crew with him, and as far as I can tell from the story, he was not bothering anyone. And what is "commercial use?" A journalist gathering information for a story is protected by the First Amendment ... or at least should be. As a radio host, he could argue that he was a journalist. And this is also public property, owned by the people. I could understand a private company prohibiting photography -- that is their right.
This reminds me of the big scandal St. Louis County got itself in when it tried to ban photography in public parks about a year ago. They quickly backed off their stance.

MetroLink is public property funded by the taxpayers. Are you seriously imply that our government should be allowed to take away our right to video things that happen on public property? Ever heard of The First Amendment before? Does not sound like it to me.

The policy states you can film or photograph for personal use. It restricts commercial use. NOWHERE in the policy does it state cameras are prevented on the grounds because of public safety (those of you who think it's to prevent recon photos and videos). The security guards have no right to prevent you from filming for personal reasons. This man-regardless of his actions after being confronted or his political/personal beliefs- did nothing wrong. I'd have reacted in a similar fashion since the policy is clear. Photographers and videographers have been harrassed in and around St. Louis a LOT recently... and it needs to stop.
Also: I won't give up my freedoms in exchange for security.

I was shooting photos near the steel mill in Granite City late at night. The reason for the late night shoot were the steam 'clouds' against a night sky lit by various color lights of the factory. Security saw me and I lifted the camera so he could see what I was doing. I was on a public road and my car was on the shoulder. The security officer asked me my name which I provided. Then told me that I was in violation of the homeland security act and he demanded my camera, film, or memory card. I refused to give him either. He then said that he would DETAIN me if I didn't give up one or the other. I told him I would leave. He demanded the camera, memory card or film once again. Finally, I relented and told him I'd show him the images on my camera via the preview feature so he'd be reassured. He reviewed a handful of images and then told me to leave and not come back. Let me remind you I was standing on a public street, cars were driving past, the streetlight was changing colors. I was literally standing on a public road. I did not peek over fences and I did not enter their property. But, I was told I would be detained just for taking photos. This does happen. And it's unacceptable.

This fascinates me. I was given a warning for taking photos on the Skinker platform, but the security guard was very polite. Apparently the policy states it as ok, but with all the assholes out there trying to blow shit up for no reason, why risk looking like a guy taking recon shots? Just board the damn train and take photos/videos afterward. And don't be a dick to the transit authority. Like all security, they're just doing their job and also realize that the chance to get a little action happening breaks up the monotony of whatever those guys do all day.

@Bob McCollum We the people do not need to give you or anyone else the reason for filming or taking photographs in public places. We the people do not need to give you or anyone else a motive to exercise the rights protected to all under the constitution. We only need the desire to exercise them that's all. No one has the right to question the motives of others about why we vote or speak about a specific topic or read a particular book or by a gun.